The Hollywood Reporter is touting how its own television wizard advises a media war on all things Trump. The headline is "In Order to Survive, Cable News Should Go Full Anti-Trump: There's one way for cable news to stave off steep declines over the next few years, writes THR's chief TV critic, and it involves embracing and channeling anti-Trump anger."

TV critic Tim Goodman lectured that "if we must have cable news, perhaps it's time for the people who run it to face the facts: Millions of people just proved, definitively, that facts don't matter to them. [Italics his.] For everybody else, they know you didn't or couldn't make facts matter, and so they are out searching for actual journalism..."

Is the Social Network also the Electoral Network? Yes, says Max Read, who suggested in a piece for New York magazine that Mark Zuckerberg had more to do with Donald Trump’s win than did James Comey, Julian Assange, or Bernie Sanders. “It can be clarifying,” Read wrote, “to identify the conditions that allowed access to the highest levels” of politics to Trump, “a dangerous and unpredictable bigot…In this case, the condition was: Facebook.” To Read, “the most obvious way in which Facebook enabled a Trump victory has been its inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news.”

Editor’s Note: Some readers may be offended by language in this story. The game of politics is a lot easier when you know the results ahead of time. The Clinton campaign has experience at that — predicting in advance whether at least eight separate stories from top news organizations were “positive.” Clinton staff were correct each time.

If there’s ever a Donald Trump-centric TV channel, it’s likely that not all of its big names would be from the populist right, hinted What Liberal Media? author Alterman in his column for The Nation's November 14 issue. Alterman claimed that MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough “has made some of the most egregious pro-Trump arguments heard anywhere during this election cycle” and, regarding Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin, wrote, “The famous inside-baseballer has bathed himself repeatedly in Trump’s orange glow, posting romantic-style selfies with the nominee from his helicopter and defending his racist arguments about Mexicans and guns, among many other outrages.”

It hurts journalists right to their activist little hearts, so they’re trying like heck to avoid telling you. But the Colin Kaepernick-led national anthem protests really are hurting the NFL’s ratings.

A Media Research Center study of donations at OpenSecrets.org demonstrates a dramatic tilt in campaign donations by employees at some of America’s leading news outlets.

The most dramatic financial favoritism is shown by employees of The New York Times: since January 1, 2008, 68 employees of the Times have donated exclusively to Democrats or Democratic PACs to just three employees who donated to a Republican. Compare that to The Washington Post, whose employees in the same time period broke out as 15 Democratic donors to two who gave to the GOP. A similar breakdown came from putting in the Big Three TV news operations, 32 to 2 overall. Putting these five media outlets together, it’s 115 Democrat donors to 7 who have given to Republicans.

NBC executives had planned to use video of the vulgar discussion between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Billy Bush to influence the election.

TMZ reported on Oct. 12, that NBC executives knew of the existence of this taped conversation before the The Washington Post released it to the public — although they’ve claimed to only know about it for about a week. The actual incident dates back to 2005.

Liberals often allege that the media are too tough on Hillary Clinton and not tough enough on Donald Trump. Taibbi is left of center and anti-Trump, but he thinks the quantity and quality of those complaints are “getting ridiculous,” and that the main problem isn’t bad campaign coverage -- it’s dopey voters. “We are less than two months from the possibility of one of the dumbest people on the planet winning the White House,” wrote Taibbi in a Friday piece, “and it seems that all anyone's talked about this week…is the lung capacity of Hillary Clinton…That sucks. But it's not all the media's fault.”

As expected, the top domestic Spanish-language network newscasts each led with reporting on Hillary Clinton's medical incident while at Sunday's 9/11 commemoration ceremony. However, coverage of the same was divergent in scope and framing. One network echoed the rest of the establishment media's coverage of the story, while the other kept focus on the very aspect that the others tried to bury.

Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment isn’t just campaign fodder, believes Brian Beutler, who in a Monday piece argued that by telling “impolite truths,” Clinton pulled an already-loose thread and may have furthered the unraveling of the GOP. Assuming Donald Trump doesn’t become president, some Republicans will “wish to dislodge Trump and Trumpism from the party,” observed Beutler, but he doesn’t think they’ll succeed if they underestimate the prevalence of bigotry among Trump’s supporters. Unfortunately, he noted, “anti-Trump conservatives remain uncomfortable admitting the scope and severity of America’s racism problem.” In other words, for those conservatives to achieve their goal, they’ll have to concede that Hillary’s allegation was essentially correct.

On Wednesday, Michael Tomasky, apropos of a challenge the media face in covering Donald Trump, mused that “‘objective’ news reporting -- and this is a real crisis with no easy answers -- is ill-positioned to call a lie a lie.” On Thursday, Tomasky urged the media to upgrade their position by taking certain “drastic measures” that “Trump has forced…upon us” as a consequence of his lying “literally most of the time he’s talking.”

Penn State professor and Bernie Sanders enthusiast Sophia McClennen has a message for her fellow progressives: “If the thought of a [Donald] Trump presidency worries you, the thought of a Trump news network should scare the hell out of you.” McClennen’s Monday piece for Salon addressed reports that if Trump loses to Hillary Clinton, he, Steve Bannon, and Roger Ailes may start a competitor to Fox News. McClennen expects that a Trumpcentric media business would be “founded on the same principles we have seen in place during his campaign: hate mongering, extreme nationalism, xenophobia, misogyny and a total lack of connection to reality. If the campaign seemed to have fascist tendencies, imagine a news network founded on those same principles.”

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.